Will County Finance Committee met June 1.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Marcum led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Kenneth E. Harris called the meeting to order at 12:20 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Chair | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Finance Committee - Regular Meeting - May 4, 2021 11:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
1. Update of Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Collections - Attachments Added (Karen Hennessy)
Ms. Hennessy reviewed the attachments in the agenda packet.
County Board Members were given an opportunity to ask questions for clarification of the spreadsheets being presented.
Mr. Moustis stated these are the 2020 revenue numbers and it seems like our revenue was not affected by the COVID crisis. I don’t have a problem with the numbers and I appreciate that you are conservative. However, do you think this is because we were so conservative in our revenue streams?
Ms. Hennessy replied that could be part of it. When Ms. Howard develops the revenue estimates, we are very conservative. Also, the budget is done so far in advance; the FY2021 budget is already done and we are seeing the results of that. Even the FY2021 budget is going to look low. It does not mean we can’t collect, it just means we are creating our budget on the expectation it will be a little bit less.
Mr. Moustis stated I am fine with that. I would much rather be conservative than overly optimistic on revenue.
Ms. Hennessy stated that has been our practice all these years. We are very conservative on revenue and since your expenses have to fall within the revenue coming in, we are conservative on the expense side also.
Mr. Moustis asked when we are over in our revenue; is that money unappropriated revenue in the corporate fund?
Ms. Hennessy replied yes and continued reviewing the attachments.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am still confused by these numbers. I cannot understand why the November number is so gigantic. On the County option, we anticipated funding based on normal usage and it was going to be $12 million more each year. This is way out of sight, because we did not collect it for the first six months of the year and we have already collected $12 million. I see in November we collected $5 million. I can’t see how that is possible.
Ms. Hennessy stated at the end of the year, we are charged with recording revenue in the period it is earned. We don’t back up during the year, we only do that to adjust at the year-end so we can accurately report for our financial statements. That is why you see $9 million of RTA tax in November; that number would be September, October and November. That happens all the time.
Mr. Fricilone stated I cannot understand how our MFT and RTA funds are so high. People were not driving the first half of the year. Even if they drove a little more, they could not double it. The numbers seem out of whack. I forgot the State raised the taxes twice.
Ms. Hennessy stated part of the increase in the MFT is because we are getting additional funds from the State and then we have the County option on top of that.
Mr. Fricilone stated we don’t get additional, we get what we have coming. On the RTA funds we have never been that far over. When we projected out the bonds, we were projecting a reasonable increase, but not this much more. It seems a little high when people were not going anywhere last year.
Ms. Hennessy stated the money comes directly from the State. I have no reason to believe they are sending us extra.
Mr. Moustis stated I want to talk specifically about the RTA tax. MFT funds are restricted to roads. The RTA tax, we have more latitude. I think the RTA tax can be used on public transportation. The reason I bring this up is because when I look at these revenue streams and the MFT and how much they are going up and they appear to be considerably more than we estimated that as we go forward, I would like to have the RTA tax looked at and when we are preparing the budget, the Executive’s Office does the Will Ride and I would ask them to look at potentially increasing that budget and taking some RTA funding and determine how we can help our seniors and people with disabilities that make them rely on public transportation. As far as the cash flow on these charts, there is no rhyme or reason from the State. You can look at the nursing home and it has been the same way forever. They don’t pay for a while and then they pay for three months. The State does not use a system where they pay us on a regular basis and it creates these eradicate cash flows. I think that is one of the reasons we use very conservative estimates because we don’t know exactly when the State is going to give us the money.
Mr. Harris stated that is part of what we deal with. We are estimating and it is hard when you don’t know what the State is going to do and when they are going to do it. I concur with looking at the RTA tax fund as they are working with the budget and see where we can offer some additional assistance.
Mr. Fricilone stated we can use the RTA fund for capital projects and we are using a portion to pay the bonds on the courthouse. If we have extra this year, we may be able to use that for the additional costs that showed up on the courthouse. We could use that money, since it can be designated for public safety issues.
Mr. Palmer stated for the MFT, we have the State portion and the County portion; which is based on gasoline consumption. The RTA is a sales tax; if there is any spike in the last year, it could be because people were at home during the last year, buying stuff. The hardware stores, Home Depot, Lowes and others were doing a booming business and that is all sales tax collection. We have added more large businesses, like the Costco and those type of places in Will County that are collecting more sales taxes. RTA is a sales tax and the MFT is on gasoline sales and both of them were raised. We created the local county gas tax and the State raised theirs. It is all new revenue.
Mr. Moustis stated within the last year they started collecting taxes on on-line sales and that makes a big difference. We were not getting that money prior.
Ms. Hennessy continued reviewing the attachments in the agenda packet.
Ms. Ventura stated when you said the numbers went up, did we arbitrarily increase those just because we had extra money allowing for a bigger budget for the County Executive to appropriate or was that something we approved to increase the budget? If we have extra money, one thing that we as County Board Members might want to do is decrease the taxes so we are not collecting as much in different areas if we have a surplus as opposed to saying we have more money, let’s spend it. I don’t understand why they automatically went up.
Ms. Hennessy replied what went up is the budget. The budget is based on the prior year actual and trends. The collection of the RTA and MFT taxes those have happened. At this point, there is nothing for us to do except estimate how much we are going to get.
Ms. Ventura stated I understand that, but the RTA went from $25 million to $28 million; is that an inflation rate we added to that? Why didn’t we keep it at $25 million?
Ms. Hennessy replied I was talking about the budget. In FY20 we collected $28 million, but we did not budget for $28 million in FY21, which is what we are looking at now. We are slow to react to those increases, because of the timing; we are doing the budget in the middle of the summer. Ms. Howard has started working on the FY22 budget this week and we would not have all the current information. My comment was the budget for FY21 is at $25 million, not at the actual collection from the prior year.
Ms. Ventura stated the previously budgeted was also $25 million.
Ms. Hennessy replied it was $24.6 million in FY20 and we went up a small amount, but not all the way to the prior year.
Ms. Hennessy continued the review of the attachments in the agenda packet.
Ms. Ventura asked on the FY21 graph on the bottom, why did you not include the ones from column “g”, where you have the months?
Ms. Hennessy replied the chart on the left hand side is when we actually received them. In March 2021, we received $105,000 and that was for December 2020. There is a significant delay between when the sales tax is incurred, it is processed by the State and then distributed to us. There is a three month delay. I can’t back this up to December, because we did not receive the funds until March; that is why I showed you the additional information.
Ms. Ventura stated I don’t understand the chart on the right.
Ms. Hennessy replied the sales month would determine where it goes.
Ms. Ventura stated column “h” is very helpful, it does make more sense why the last month is a ton more, because it is for four months. I have put forth a Resolution and I am interested in working with the Committee just having an Advisory Board to help move some of these dollars on an annual basis, so we are making sure this new tax is going to appropriate areas to shrink the wealth gap and help everyone by creating more sales taxes and MFT. When people have more money, they spend more money and we all benefit. I am interested in having those conversations; whether it is at this Committee or at the Executive Committee, but I don’t think we should rush through where to spend this money, just because we have $800,000 sitting in the bank. I think we should have an open, honest conversation and allow the public to have some input as well.
2. Update of the CARES Act Fund Balance (Discussion)
Ms. Hennessy stated I was not able to prepare an update in time for the meeting today. The only current program is the small business grant program. We have gotten through the first group of approved grants; there were 17 of them. If this is going to be a regular monthly agenda item, is there something specific you would like me to highlight?
Mrs. Traynere stated when I spoke with Bronner, they indicated there were no funds left. I wanted to get a better answer from the Finance Department or at the next CARES Committee meeting. DuPage Township spent a considerable amount of money updating their computers, Zoom and audio-visual for the township meetings, because they had no equipment. They have not requested to be reimbursed and I wanted to know if there is any possibility of that happening?
Mr. Moustis replied we appropriated everything that was left in the CARES fund to the business assistance allocations. I don’t think there is any money left. The intention was to wrap up the CARES Committee and then the Finance Committee would clean everything up. There was no more program money available.
Mrs. Traynere stated if we do not give out all of the small business grants, there would be money left.
Mr. Moustis stated the intention for the defederalized money was there could still be some requests, but the Committee has not set it up. We have the ARP money and I think there will be opportunities for DuPage Township and others who did not participate. Frankfort Township received reimbursements for PPE and other things. Hopefully, there will be funds available for DuPage Township and others. You can ask about the defederalized money and whether we are going to set up a program out of those funds for local governments, which is part of the budget process. The Chair could advise people that we are going to look at programs. I would also ask our Speaker to be engaged in the budget process and say we want to continue these programs with some of the money and we are not going to use it to pay shortfalls. As far as the CARES money, it is over and the CARES Committee is done. Everything was appropriated or was defederalized.
Mr. Harris stated to me, the defederalized money is still CARES money and that is what I mean when I talk about the CARES funds. How much defederalized money is remaining?
Mr. Moustis stated the intent of the CARES Committee and the Board was that we defederalized it, so we would not lose it, but we were going to continue with the spirit of the CARES guidelines for the money. When I hear people say we might have a shortage here or there, so let’s use CARES money; that is not why we defederalized it. The defederalized CARES money is still available and we need to be engaged as a Committee and as a Board on how we are going to appropriate that money. The money should be used as it was intended for under the CARES Act. We have to set up new appropriations and programs with that money. The CARES money is gone. We will have a new program with the defederalized CARES money.
Mr. Palmer stated the County authorized expending up to $1 million in the latest business program. Last week we got notice they anticipated closing that very soon, because they will have exhausted the $1 million. The goal of the Committee was to spend all of the money that was left and close out the CARES fund. There is one caveat; we had funds outstanding for the nonprofits and the food groups and whether they were going to spend every dollar was unknown. That is why we were seeking the update of the money that was still technically in the CARES fund. If there is money left over, Bronner could put it into the business program, if the County Board appropriated money into the program, but they could use it. They can only do it, if we do it now. If we are going to wait six months then it is not going to be effective to do that. That is why a lot of people are asking where we are with those numbers. The defederalized money was booked, per the guidelines. Like many municipalities, we booked it as a CARES related expense and defederalized it. It is now available for whatever purpose the Board decides to use it on and they don’t have to follow the CARES guidelines, because they followed the guidelines when it was defederalized. The defederalized money requires full County Board action, where the CARES money could be appropriated by the CARES Committee. Any money not spent by the nonprofits or the food pantries will require full County Board action.
Speaker Cowan stated on Thursday we will begin talking about the ARP funds at a high level and starting reviewing the plans staff, leadership and I have starting coddling together. If there are organizations in your district who needs funding, that would be something to bring forward to ensure that consideration is built into our program. Regarding the accounting for the CARES funds, we are going on multiple months now of having asked for that accounting. Mr. Schaben is not on this call nor was he on the Capital Improvements Committee call, but I am going to address this to him nonetheless; as the Chief of Staff, it is your job to direct where staff’s energies are most needed. These two accounting issues are critical for the County Board to have an understanding on what we are doing and what we need to do going forward. I understand there is a lot going on, but we need to keep business moving. In order to do that, we need a full and accurate accounting on what we were talking about at the Capital Improvements Committee meeting and where we are with the CARES Act funds, including the defederalized monies. We need to know what has been spent, where it was spent and what we have left, if anything. I hope we would be able to have both of those reports on the June 10th Executive Committee agenda.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Committing Funds for University of Illinois Cooperative Extension (Megan Walsh, County Extension Director)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Mr. Moustis stated the Treasurer would like to hold on to a few of these coins and take the rest to a coin dealer. There is one ounce of silver in them, so we know they are worth at least the price of silver. I don’t remember these coins, but I assume the general public had an opportunity to buy these coins through the Treasurer’s Office.
Mr. Brophy stated on January 12, 1986 the County became 150 years old. To celebrate the event, a sesquicentennial committee produced the two commemorative medallions; they are not two different coins, they are two different sides. I don’t know how many were made, but currently there are 341 remaining.
Mr. Moustis stated before you take those to a coin dealer, I would like you to see what they are worth. I would like to buy a couple of them.
Mr. Brophy stated I will hold them until the next in-person County Board meeting and give everyone a chance to buy what they would like. Then, the surplus we could get rid of.
Mr. Moustis stated we should put something out to the general public and promote them one last time. We could let the general public buy these directly from the County and they don’t have to go to a coin dealer who will add a margin on these coins. Get a value and let’s get the word out.
Mr. Brophy stated today, they are worth about $28.11.
Mr. Moustis stated it could be a nice gift for someone or someone could melt it down for the silver. I think we should give it one more go of letting people buy them.
Mr. Harris stated we should offer them for sale again.
3. Request for Proposed Radio Tower Located at Will County DOT - Wilmington Site (Tom Murray)
Mr. Murray reviewed the memorandum in the agenda packet.
Mr. Fricilone asked where is the money coming from?
Mr. Murray replied I spoke with Ms. Johannsen and she seemed to believe there was funding available for the project.
Mr. Harris clarified the project would be about $200,000.
Mr. Murray replied that is correct. We spoke to the vendor who built the current tower and he estimated it would be about that much money. We will be very fiscally responsible in trying to utilize the equipment we have to keep the cost at or below that figure.
Ms. Ventura asked at that price, do we need to go out for a bid? If not, is it because it was done by a vendor previously and falls under that? If our staff has promised to pay this, where are we paying this from?
Mr. Murray stated my understanding is it does need to go to bid. I am looking for approval from the County Board for the funding and approval for the project to go to a bid process.
Ms. Howard stated Ms. Johannsen and I spoke about this and the funding would come from our capital fund. We had anticipated this going forth last year, but there were some delays.
Mr. Moustis stated this is a worthwhile project. Good communications between emergency services is vital. We always think we have it down pat until we have a real emergency and things don’t work exactly like we want them to. This will boost our system. When you spend in excess of $20 million on a radio system, you want it to work as effectively as possible. To me $200,000 based on the cost of the radio system is really very little money. I know this can come out of the capital funds, but since our RTA revenues, which can be used for public safety, were higher than anticipated, we should see if RTA funds are available for this project.
Mr. Harris stated since the funding has been identified, the next step is to give authorization to proceed with the bidding process.
Mr. Moustis stated I will make a motion to move forward with the bidding, but they will have to come back to the Committee once they have the actual dollar amount.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I like Mr. Moustis’ idea rather than taking it out of the capital fund, take it from the RTA fund since we can use it for public safety and we received more than we anticipated. It makes sense, because those dollars are specific to public safety.
Mr. Harris asked will the bids come back to the Capital Improvements Committee or to the Finance Committee for a final Resolution?
Mr. Moustis replied it was already approved at the Capital Improvements Committee; it just has to come back here for appropriation after they get the bids.
Motion to move forward with the bidding for the proposed radio tower located at the Will County DOT – Wilmington Site
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Ms. Howard stated this was brought to the Executive Committee last month. This is a request for additional security staff at the County Office Building once the renovation is complete. They are asking for two additional security officers; there is one officer here. This request was sent to the Finance Committee because there was a question as to where the funding would come from. The security services are currently paid from the Finance Department budget, so we would definitely need an appropriation increase, because there is not enough to cover that. We would be seeking to take the funding from the County Board contingency line item, if approved.
Mr. Harris asked that would be about $50,000 for FY21 and $175,000 for FY22, is that correct?
Ms. Howard replied yes.
Ms. Ventura stated I was a no vote on this at the Executive Committee. I don’t think we should be approving this much extra staff. If we vote no on this, does it go back to the Executive Committee for them to relook at or because they approved it, are we stuck appropriating the money? What is the process? If we don’t approve this money, what happens?
Mr. Moustis replied even if you voted no, it would still go to the full County Board. The County Board agenda has to be set and it would move forward to the full County Board. The Executive Committee could decide not to put it on the County Board agenda. If the Committee voted no, then the recommendation from the Finance Committee would be to not appropriate funds. The Executive Committee would have an opportunity to postpone it from going forward or not place it on the full County Board agenda.
Ms. Ventura stated there was a conversation about not funding all three after a long discussion on how many people we needed. I feel more discussion needs to be had. I will be a no vote, because I would like to see a different solution than just providing three staff members at the entrance. It is overkill and I would like to see our dollars go somewhere else; rather than intimidating people coming into the County Office Building, which is really what it feels like.
Mr. Moustis stated I agree with Ms. Ventura. I think there should be more discussion and there were others who had concerns. Mr. Fricilone had concerns on how we would utilize the staffing and whether it needs to be there the entire time the County Office Building is open. There is a peak time in the morning where you need people, but after 10:00 a.m. you don’t need them. Are we going to use part-time or full-time people who don’t need benefits, like they do at RVJC? At RVJC most are retired law enforcement officers and they work 15 or 20 hours a week. There are questions and I think there is a more economical way of doing this. We could table it and bring it back next month; which is another way of sticking to procedures. But, there needs to be more discussion.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I was recently in Cook County at the Bridgeview facility and there were so many people standing at the front door at 10:00 a.m. There were three fully armed security guards just sitting there, not doing anything. I think we need to really look hard at the number of officers needed.
Mrs. Traynere stated three full-time people are too much and it is a bad use of tax money.
Mr. Fricilone stated this is full-time, armed security officers, not deputies and they will be paid $27 per hour. I don’t believe we need three, but we have a metal detector and someone has to operate it. My suggestion was that we have two people; one person who is always there and they can cover when the other has to go to the bathroom. At least, we have one person there at all times. I would make a motion to appropriate the money for one additional.
Mr. Moustis stated I think they should use part-time people. If you want to move forward with something, we could say we will give money for two FTE, not two people, because I don’t think they need people there all day long. You could have a rush in the morning, depending on whether employees go through the metal detector or not. I think part-time people is the way to get the coverage, because you don’t need them there eight hours a day.
Mr. Fricilone asked would they be paid any different? It will still be $27 per hour.
Mr. Moustis replied if they are part-time, you may only have them there for four hours, not eight hours. You could have one person there for eight hours and one person there for four hours. You don’t need two people all day long. Even going through the metal detector, one person could handle that. We already have one person and this would be on top of that. I think you need one and half people there. This is why we need additional discussion and I would rather not approve this until we have the discussion on how they are going to utilize the hours. I would favor tabling this and getting some answers.
Ms. Ventura stated my concern with postponing, is it does not go back to the Committee that approved this. I think the motion has to send this back to the Committee that approved this. I think this should be a one and half persons. If it is going to be part-time, then typically we don’t pay full benefits, if they work under 1,000 hours per year. If you have a fully armed deputy at the desk, do you need another fully armed officer? Could this be like when we moved out the bailiff and had different officers in their place? I am assuming someone like that would be paid a lot less, especially if it was a part-time person. I would look at the morning hours, but there might be some seasonal times, like when we are collecting taxes and for those peak times that we have a second officer full-time. I think this needs to be reconsidered, but I don’t know if postponing it at the Finance Committee is the way to go. Do we need to move it to a Committee that can make that determination and then have it come back to Finance for us to approve the funding?
Mr. Conser stated I want to bring up a couple of incidents that happened in the past. On December 2, 2015 at the San Bernardino Office Building attack; 14 were killed by an employee that was having problems with other employees. On February 15, 2019, in Aurora, Illinois, someone was going to HR to get terminated and six were dead. These kind of shootings happen. Our HR Department is in this building. If you are going to run the metal detector, you may be able to do it with two, but I would prefer to go with three in the beginning and adjust from there. It is entirely up to you whether you want to approve this; but I am just giving you past events. This new security came as a result of the incident in Aurora. People in the building being concerned about what was being done about security; because in both of these cases, they were former employees.
Mr. Pretzel stated we should be careful in having the County Board decide how many security guards we need. The experts are telling us we need two more. I think before we decide whether they should not be armed or we need less, that we ask some serious questions to the people who are recommending we have three.
Ms. Ventura stated I appreciate Mr. Conser’s comments and concerns. We should make decisions based on what is best for our County and not based on fear, but on things that we feel are a necessity. No amount of security in the world can control if someone is going to do a mass shooting. There is an armed guard there now and that is a deterrent and if it is not, it is not. I have done a lot of reading about reasons for police brutality; both on the side of the officers and those claiming it, and the one thing experts have shown is when you have multiple officers, there is a lesser fear factor and they feel they are being stacked up on. Sometimes they don’t take the time to evaluate the situation fully, they react quicker and there are lots of case studies of that. The more officers at the scene, there is a quicker response, but the quicker response can be the incorrect response. They might see a cell phone as a gun and they act quicker, but it does not mean that is the best course of action. I am happy to provide those studies and the books. I understand there is a process and a certain number of people are needed to man that process. Doubling up for intimidation or the what ifs is something we cannot control. That is not what should be driving our decisions. If we are going to have a metal detector, then we need to have the manpower to man it when we are busy, but I don’t think we need to put a bunch of armed guards there because somebody might come and shoot us. We are not a military state. We work for the people and they should feel comfortable coming to the County Office Building and feel like this is a welcome place for them. I want to be cautious as to what is driving our decisions.
Mr. Pretzel stated it is our job to keep people safe who are coming to the County Office Buildings. For me and most people I know, we feel safer when we see armed security, because we know they are there to protect us. Again, we should be very careful about making these decisions, as people without experience and we should listen to the experts.
Mr. Moustis stated this has to go back to the Executive Committee to be placed on the County Board agenda. Can we say we approve this, but there is no recommendation from the Finance Committee on the number, without further discussion? Maybe we could let it go forward at the Executive Committee, and for those who think this should be postponed for further discussions, it could be reassigned. That might be the easiest way to address this. I am not sure the easiest way to move it forward from here. I think we can move it back to the Executive Committee with no recommendation and let the Executive Committee have the discussion. Mrs. Tatroe can we move this forward, with no recommendation?
Mrs. Tatroe replied you can move it forward to the Executive Committee with no recommendation and leave it up to the Executive Committee for a decision.
Mrs. Berkowicz shared her experiences and what she has witnessed with the security at the County Office Building and stated at a moment of crisis we have the resources to lock down the building, protect the staff and the community members in the building. We need sufficient coverage for them to take breaks. I am very confident that our Sheriff’s Department has the knowledge and experience to advise the County Board on what they feel we should have to provide that protection to the staff and the community. The demands on our personnel are real and they happen throughout the day.
Motion to move this item to the Executive Committee with no recommendation.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Ms. Ventura stated I was hoping to get some answers about the $6 million overage at the courthouse. When are we going to see that? How will it be laid out? I would like some information. They dropped the bomb last month and now no one wants to talk about it. The Capital Improvements Committee talked about it, but we need to understand what is happening and when we might expect to see something. There were allegations made to the Board and until we know otherwise, we are in the dark. Could somebody answer when we might see something? I thought we might see something at this meeting.
Mr. Harris stated Mr. Tkac is not on this call.
Ms. Ventura asked are there any staff members here that might be able to answer? I think it is pretty important.
Mr. Moustis stated I am in support of what Ms. Ventura is saying. The Finance Committee should not appropriate any funding for any of these overages until we get a full accounting. They say it is coming soon, but until it comes we don’t appropriate another dime. I know the vendors may have money coming, but we may need to ask some of them some real questions about what went awry. I find it interesting they say we are $6 million short, but it is all of the projects. No, it is not all of the projects. When they do that, they are not being transparent, they are telling us they have no idea which project was over. I think they do. They say the courthouse is over, the courthouse may not be over at all, it may all be from the Health Department, we don’t know. So they put out a misleading statement to start with, it is all of the projects. We budgeted $275 million; when they say we are over $6 million, does that mean the total projects were $281 million? On the Sheriff’s Facility we said to take $15 million from reserves. Did they take the $15 million from reserves and the project totals are really $296 million? They said they are going to give details, but wanted to make sure they were accurate. They started out with a statement saying it is the courthouse and now they are saying it is all of the projects; does that mean we really don’t know which projects were over? In my opinion, you know which projects were over. You may say you want to be exact, but until we get all of our questions answered, we should not appropriate one more dollar to these shortfalls. We will get a full accounting when we don’t give them any money. They have already paid some bills and the money was not appropriated and we need an accounting of that also. How much was already paid with the approval of the Capital Improvements Committee when there was no appropriation for those payments?
Ms. Howard replied I don’t have the numbers available; it is something I would have to look up.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to see what we paid, when the dollars were not appropriated. The State’s Attorney has said we cannot pay bills unless they are appropriated. Are we going to have to go back and appropriate what has already been paid?
Mrs. Tatroe stated I said if there was not an appropriation, it would have to be appropriated. I don’t know if there was money in a professional services line item or if there was just a reference that Mrs. Johannsen said there was money in capital for the radio tower. There may have been an appropriation that would have covered the bills that were paid. I would expect there was, because they have to go through an approval process to be paid. They have to find the appropriation. I don’t know that it is fair to say there was no appropriation.
Ms. Howard stated we can’t spend dollars that are not there or we don’t have an appropriation for.
Mr. Moustis stated we need to know where it was paid from. It tells me you knew we were over budget; why weren’t we notified? I understand you can be directed to take it from someplace else, but I would like to know if that direction took place and who it came from. A lot of this is under the County Board; the contingencies, capital funds. If it was in our budget and it was taken from there, who directed that to happen? I am not going to let folks off the hook by saying you had an appropriation in professional services. Who directed you to take it from professional services or contingency? You had to have direction from somebody.
Mr. Harris stated next month we will have an agenda item to receive some type of accounting or report on where the overrun was and get information on what happened.
Mr. Moustis stated in the meantime, we need to make it clear, no more appropriations and the money cannot be spent. Do we have to direct them to not take it from other line items? It is easy to say you can take it from another line item, but there has to be some direction from some authority to do that; I am assuming staff does not do that on their own. I think it is appropriate to ask what bills were paid above the original appropriations for those projects. Who appropriated that? Who gave direction to take the money from those line items? The Capital Improvements Committee moved the invoices forward, but does the Finance Committee need to give an appropriation? We should not appropriate one more dime until we get a full explanation of which projects were over, what caused them to be over and who authorized payments or changes above and beyond the original budget and they need to be held accountable. It did not come back to the County Board for change orders.
Mrs. Ogalla stated in the past, the project managers from the different companies came forward to give an update each month. Everyone we hired, has a project budget in place and they know if they were over. They could also provide information and perhaps should be here to explain in more detail. I am positive I could provide a lot of different studies and things to read to support the fact that a vast majority of our police officers do a really great job and keep people safe and secure. I did not want to end this meeting without mentioning there is a difference of opinion with police and police brutality or what someone might say. I think a lot of it comes down to the individual who decides they don’t want to be in a situation where they are getting arrested and they start fighting back. We could go on and on with this. I think we should stick with the facts of how many people are needed in the front of the County Office Building. The Sheriff and the Undersheriff have provided us with that information, but we have to fund it. I feel it is appropriate to ask for more details. I said I was not sure about the number needed because of what I saw in Cook County where there are a lot more people going into the county buildings. The officers were sitting around doing nothing; they were not engaging with anybody. I don’t want to see that happen here at the County Building. I think with the new security, we need more than one person at the front of the building.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Jakaitis read the attached e-mail into the record.
Ms. Ventura stated I wanted to clarify for the record. This Resolution has not been brought forward to any Committees recently. The Resolution that Mr. Wallace referenced has been changed. It was changed the last time we discussed it that it would not be made up of an all-black committee. Nowhere in the Resolution does it say any money would go toward any one race, this is a not a reparations bill.
Mr. Fricilone stated as a point of order, we don't comment on public comment.
Ms. Ventura stated then I will make it my Committee comment. We don't want misinformation coming from the County.
Mr. Fricilone reiterated we don't comment on public comment.
Mr. Harris stated this is the public comment portion of the agenda and you don't need to respond.
1. E-Mail Read into the Record - Finance Committee June 1, 2021
(Public Comment)
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Mr. Harris stated it looks like our July meeting will be in-person, watch your e-mails.
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 2:00 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Alerts Sign-up